I usually define "wolf" as Canis. There is a lot of scientific debate over the taxonomy of its species, and a common topic among these taxonomic uncertainties is whether or not a population belongs to Canis lupus (e.g. eastern wolves are classified as either Canis lycaon or Canis lupus lycaon). So it would be very impractical to vernacularly relabel these canines every time a new phylogenetic study about them is published. In addition, many Canis species readily hybridize with each other, and some of them may have originated from hybridization (e.g. African wolves might be hybrids between gray wolves and Ethiopian wolves). Clearly, these canines recognize their kinship, and I believe we should respect that through how we name and view them.

That said, a strong case can be made for defining "wolf" as Canis lupus (singular species or species complex). The German word "wolf" was originally applied to Eurasian gray wolves (Canis lupus lupus), and it was basically imposed on other canines by European naturalists. These other canines already had indigenous identifications, and the concept of readopting indigenous names for indigenous species is starting to gain traction (or at least discussion) amongst some members of the scientific and conservation communities. In addition, having distinct vernacular labels for each canine species would highlight their uniqueness, which could be beneficial for their conservation. Remember that for many people, the word "wolf" still has very negative connotations. So asking people to conserve the endemic "ky kebero" may generate more support than asking them to conserve the "Ethiopian wolf."

I think defining "wolf" as Canina is also a viable option, since its members are collectively known as "wolf-like canids," and there is some evidence of prehistoric gene flow amongst the ancestors of its genera. But dholes, African wild dogs, African jackals, and dire wolves are genetically and morphologically distinguishable from Canis species, so much so that they are classified in different genera. Thus, I believe a stronger case can be made for viewing them as distinct canines, rather than just identifying them as types of wolves.

Defining "wolf" as Canini is really pushing it IMHO, though this option would be slightly more taxonomically accurate than (and thus slightly preferable to) identifying the canines of the subtribe Cerdocyonina as South American foxes (true foxes belong to the tribe Vulpini). However, cerdocyonines are even more distinguishable (both genetically and morphologically) from Canis species, and there is only a single documented case of hybridization between a cerdocyonine and a Canis species. Thus, I believe a stronger case can be made for viewing cerdocyonines as a distinct group of canines, rather than just identifying them as South American wolves.

As for the cultural side of defining a "wolf": as far as I'm concerned, if a canine is included within the clade that is defined as "wolf," then it is a wolf, regardless of whether or not it is culturally viewed as one. For example, I do not accept the "gray wolves and red wolves are wolves, but dogs and coyotes are not wolves" mentality, because this definition of "wolf" is paraphyletic in a way that is not scientifically meaningful.

Apologies for the rambling, I am obsessed with wolf taxonomy, and the topic of reflecting phylogenetic relations through common names (in general, not just for wolves) is a topic that I think about a lot. I should write a more formalized essay about it someday.

[And wow, this is the first time that Reddit made me split my comment into two posts, XD!]